Abstract. Schools are increasingly using curriculum-based measurement reading procedures to conduct universal screenings as a means of identifying students whose level and rate of growth are discrepant from peers. Despite abundant evidence supporting the reliability and validity of curriculum-based measurement-reading procedures, researchers have not fully evaluated the adequacy of universal screening procedures for curriculum-based measurement of reading.The current study begins to address unanswered questions regarding how best to conduct and use universal screening data. Screenings were conducted with 86second-grade students in the fall, winter, and spring of an academic year, using passages from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. Estimates of students’ level and rate of growth were calculated using (a) a single probe across universal screenings, (b) students’ median scores across universal screenings using the same passage set, and (c) students’ median scores across universal screenings using a different passage set for each screening. Significant differences in estimates of student growth were found both as a function of the probe set(s)used and the semester for which estimates were calculated (fall to winter vs.winter to spring). Based upon differences in estimates of students’ growth, as well as greater agreement in dual-discrepancy analyses, it is recommended that the same probe set be administered across universal screenings and that semester as opposed to annual rates of growth be used for evaluation purposes.